2 ms·
I think your interpretation of the meaning of "can't" is excessively sophistical. Of course, if someone does not do something which is to be expected, we can ne
by Archelaos 3y ago
I think your interpretation of the meaning of "can't" is excessively sophistical. Of course, if someone does not do something which is to be expected, we can never completely rule out that he might be able to. But this is besides the point here. There is a severe flaw in the author's line of thought, something central he does not clarify. The reader is under no obligation whatsoever to reach out to the author for clarification. The author should have explained it in the first place. The conclusion that he was unable to do so is sound.
- Talanes 3y agoDifferent readers bring different expectations, that's no basis to make any sort of serious argument around.
- Archelaos 3y agoThat is too simple. There is a whole academic discipline that makes such serious arguments -- or rather couple of them like the different kinds of literary studies, philologies and philosophical hermeneutics. Not to speak of all sorts of publications, tv talks and other places where people make serious arguments about based on their different perspectives. Tens of thousands of people make a living from that and a lot more study or follow it.
- Talanes 3y agoTens of thousands of people make a living from debating what authors should expect their readers to already know?